英语翻译In Carma,a commercial lease expressly gave the lessor th

英语翻译
In Carma,a commercial lease expressly gave the lessor the right to terminate the lease and recapture the leasehold upon notice of the tenant's intent to sublet.After the tenant relocated its headquarters out of the area,it submitted a notice of intent to sublet approximately 80 percent of the premises.The lessor responded with a notice of termination and then (unsuccessfully) pursued negotiations of a new lease with the proposed subtenant,seeking to secure for itself the higher rents.The tenant obtained a *56 judgment for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing,but the Supreme Court directed that judgment be entered in favor of the lessor.The court held as a matter of law that because the lessor's termination of the lease was expressly permitted by the lease and clearly within the parties' expectations,such conduct could never violate an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
The Carma court reasoned as follows:“It is universally recognized [that] the scope of conduct prohibited by the covenant of good faith is circumscribed by the purposes and express terms of the contract.[Citations.] ...[¶ ] ...[¶ ] We are aware of no reported case in which a court has held the covenant of good faith may be read to prohibit a party from doing that which is expressly permitted by an agreement.On the contrary,as a general matter,implied terms should never be read to vary express terms.[Citations.] 'The general rule [regarding the covenant of good faith] is plainly subject to the exception that the parties may,by express provisions of the contract,grant the right to engage in the very acts and conduct which would otherwise have been forbidden by an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.[¶ ] This is in accord with the general principle that,in interpreting a contract ”an implication ...should not be made when the contrary is indicated in clear and express words.“ [Citation.] ...[¶ ] As to acts and conduct authorized by the express provisions of the contract,no covenant of good faith and fair dealing can be implied which forbids such acts and conduct.And if defendants were given the right to do what they did by the express provisions of the contract there can be no breach.' [Citation.]”
In the present case,Citicorp was expressly authorized by section 3.02(a)(ii) of the loan agreement to withhold loan funds if the project budget *57 was “out of balance” such that the anticipated expenses exceeded available funds.Clearly it was within the parties' expectations that Citicorp would regularly determine whether the project budget was in balance.Under section 3.01 of the loan agreement,Old Oakland was required to submit along with its monthly requests for disbursements a current project budget and “evidence satisfactory to the Lender” that the leasing criteria had been met.

绝对让您满意,花三个小时翻译：
在Carma案中,商业租约明文规定：一旦收到承租人转租的意向通知书,出租人有权终止租约,并取回租赁物.承租人在该区之外重新租赁到租赁物之后,大约80%的人递交了意向通知书.而出租人则以终止租约的方式应对,并继续与被推荐来的转借者就新租约进行谈判,以为自己寻求更高的租金收入.承租人被判定违背了隐含的诚实信用和公平交易原则,但是最高法院则认为法院应当作出有利于出租人的判决.最高法院依据法律认为：由于出租人终止租约的权利是租赁合同所明确赋予的,并明显属于合同双方预期范围之内,因此出租人终止租约的行为永远不会违背隐含的诚实信用和公平交易原则.(Carma,supra,2 Cal.4th at pp.351,371-376.)
审理Carma的法庭论述理由如下：“诚实信用条款所禁止的行为范围应当以符合合同的目的及其条款的明确规定为限,这是举世公认的.（引用）对于诚实信用条款而言,一般的规则应当是使其明白地服从于合同双方可能通过合同明确条款所规定的例外,赋予合同双方从事特殊行为的权利,并引导合同双方不要从事隐含的诚实信用和公平交易原则所禁止的行为……这是与普遍原理相一致的——“在理解一个合同的内容时,如果合同的内容对某事项作出清晰、 明确的规定……则不得采用与此相反的理解.”“（引用）……如果合同明确赋予当事人从事某种行为的权利,则不得以利用诚实信用和公平交易条款的隐含规定为由禁止当时任从事此项行为.如果合同明确规定被告享有从事某种行为的权利,则当被告从事该行为时,不存在违背合同的情况.（引用）”(Carma,supra,2 Cal.4th at pp.373-374; see also New Hampshire Ins.Co.v.Ridout Roofing Co.(1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 495,504-505 [80 Cal.Rptr.2d 286].)
本案中,花旗集团被贷款协议第 3.02节 (一)(ii)部分明确赋予停止借贷资金支付的权利——当该项目的工程预算失去平衡的时候,比如预期的费用支出超出了现有有效资金.很明显,花旗集团可能会按规定决定该项目的工程预算是否失去平衡——这是在合同当事人合理预期之内的.根据贷款协议第3.01部分规定,与其每月支付要求一起,Old Oakland应当提交近期工程预算和令贷方满意的租约标准已获执行的证据.这份文件的显而易见的目的在于使花旗集团能够作出其决定：对于借贷资金的支付,该情形的先决条件是否得到满足?